Twitter Updates

Film

For the past two weeks, I've watched eleven films by the delightful French director François Truffaut. Viewing Truffaut's work has been a nice antidote to today's cinematic fare of bloated and insensitive turkeys. (For my other marathons, see Kubrick, Bergman, Kurosawa, Antonioni, Russian, and Buñuel).

Truffaut (1932-1984) was at the center of film's "French New Wave" in the 1950s and 1960s. Truffaut was a proponent of "auteur" theory, which is that a film should reflect the director's personal creative vision.

Truffaut's films are generally loosely constructed narratives and focus on human relationships. Many of his films are semi-autobiographical, and show great sensitivity to women. Also, Truffaut liked to work with a small cast and crew thus giving his films an "approachable" feeling.

These are the films I watched. (I've placed a + next to my four favorites).

+The 400 Blows (Les Quatre cents coups), 1959. Starring Jean-Pierre Leaud. This was Truffaut's breakthrough film (he won best director at Cannes), and is based on his own teenage experiences and misadventures. A must-see.

Shoot the Piano Player (Tirez sur le pianiste), 1960. Charles Aznavour. Semi-farce, semi-tragedy about artists and gangsters in late 1950s Paris. Truffaut's homage to American film noir.

+Jules and Jim, 1962. Jeanne Moreau, Oskar Werner, and Henri Serre. Based on the semi-autobiographical novel of Henri-Pierre Roche. Set in pre and post World War I France and Austria, it's the story of two friends and the woman who comes between them.

Fahrenheit 451, 1966. Oskar Werner and Julie Christie. Based on the Ray Bradbury short story about a state that burns books to encourage unformity of thinking. Truffaut's only English language film, and also his first film in color. I originally saw this in 1968 and thought it was "so-so." It has aged well, though, and on my recent viewing, I came to appreciate Truffaut's choices (i.e, it is not as heavy-handed as it might have been if done by another director such as Otto Preminger). It's fun to see the various books that are burned.

Stolen Kisses (Baiers voles), 1969; Bed and Board (Domicile conjugal), 1970; and Love on the Run (L'Amour en fuite), 1979. All starring Jean-Pierre Leaud. These three are part of what is called the "Antoine Doinel series" which covers the life of the character who first appeared in "The 400 Blows." It's fun to watch Jean-Pierre Leaud grow up! Also, nice glimpse of Paris of the late 1960s.

Wild Child (L'Enfant sauvage), 1970. Based on an 1798 incident in which a ten year old feral child is brought into society. Truffaut plays a doctor who attempts to "civilize" the youth. Feels right out of the sixties.

+Day for Night (Nuit americaine), 1973. Jacquiline Bisset. Winner of the Oscar for best foreign language film. Truffaut's inside look at how a film is made. Focuses on the foibles and interactions of cast and crew. Truffaut himself plays a director (and he's actually pretty good!). Well worth seeing.

The Story of Adele H., 1975. Isabelle Adjani (nominated for best actress Oscar). About the life of the schizophrenic daughter of Victor Hugo in the 1860s. Quirky, but interesting.

+The Man Who Loved Women, 1977. Charles Denner. Comedy about a man who is drawn to women (who are also drawn to him). Provocative insights about the dynamics of attraction and courtship.

For the past two weeks, I've had a delightful time watching ten films by the great Spanish director Luis Buñuel (1900-1983). It's been like taking a "creativity shower." (These films are all available on DVD through Netflix).

Most of the films I saw were from his later years, 1960 onwards, when Buñuel was past sixty. These are generally regarded as his best works.

Indeed, for someone who just turned sixty, I find it quite motivating to see an artist whose best work is not from his thirties or forties, but from his sixties and seventies! (I think some of this can attributed to Buñuel's ongoing collaboration with the screen-writer Jean-Claude Carrière).

Buñuel, the man whom Alfred Hitchcock called the "greatest director ever," draws you right into his stories. And once you're there, almost anything can happen — he's constantly surprising you with his imagination. Three main themes in his work appealed to me:

1. Life is paradoxical: something can mean one thing, and it can also mean another.

2. Life is mysterious: unexpected and unpredictable things happen.

3. The spiritual takes different forms: it's important to be open to it.

All in all, I found watching Buñuel a great way to stretch my mind.

These are the films I watched. I'll list them in the order I viewed them. It was a very enjoyable ride. (I put an * next to my three favorites.)

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972). With Fernando Rey. Winner of the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. A group of six friends tries to have a meal together but a succession of highly unusual occurrences interferes. The interruptions become more and more surreal as the movie goes on. Some intriguing dream sequences. Lots of fun!

*That Obscure Object of Desire (1977). With Fernando Rey. Nominated for a screenplay Oscar. A man on a train explains to his fellow passengers (through flashbacks) how he came to madly desire a young woman (on whom he had dumped a bucket of water when the train left the station). A tantalizing tale! I loved the two Conchitas. A great film!

Diary of A Chambermaid (1965). With Jeanne Moreau. A Parisian chambermaid takes a job at a country estate in the late 1920s. Her employers and her co-workers are strange. A young girl is murdered in the woods. Fascinating study of class, politics (emerging fascism), and gender roles.

*Viridiana (1961). With Fernando Rey and Silvia Pinal. Winner of the Palme d'Or at Cannes. Franco invited Buñuel back to Spain to make this film. When it was released, it was banned in Spain. A young woman who is about to take her vows is invited to visit her dying Uncle. Many strange and unusual things ensue. The homeless people's re-staging of the "Last Supper" is priceless.

The Young One aka White Trash (1960). In English. Buñuel examines race relations in the United States. A black jazz musician wrongly accused of rape escapes to an island where a white game warden and his young ward are the only residents. Fascinating study of racism in America.

*The Milky Way (1969). The adventures of two modern day pilgrims who travel from Paris to Santiago de Compostela in Spain. Wherever they go, they meet people who are totally absorbed in matters relating to Christian dogma and heresy. Takes place in multiple eras with appearances by the Marquis de Sade and Jesus Christ. Full of mystery. A mind-jolting, remarkable film.

Belle de Jour (1967). With Catherine Deneuve. Won the Golden Lion at Venice. A frigid newlywed becomes a daytime call girl to satisfy her desires and curiosity. Some wonderful dream and imagination sequences.

The Phantom of Liberty (1974). One of Luis Bunuel's most free-form films. It consists of a series of vaguely inter-related episodes that show how our notions and freedom are culturally based. Quite thought-provoking. One of its most famous scenes is dinner party where people sit on lavatories around a
dinner table and then retire one at a time to a little room down the hall to eat.Un Chien Andalou (1929)and L'Age D'Or (1930). These were Buñuel's first two films (done in collaboration with Salvador Dali and Max Ernst). They're short and pure surrealism. "Un Chien Andalou" features the famous slitting of the eyeball scene. "L'Age D'Or's" premiere was disrupted the Fascist League of Patriots. Buñuel came from these early efforts.

The "flower" of Hollywood's creativity (yeah, right), the Oscar nominations for Best Picture (for 2007) were just announced. The good news is that the serial-killer musical Sweeney Todd was not nominated (what a dark and dreary viewing experience). It's too bad Eastern Promises wasn't nominated (very good cast).

The nominees are: Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, No Country for Old Men, and There Will be Blood.

Here's my take on the nominees.

ATONEMENT. My rating: ** (out of four stars). Directed by Joe Wright; starring James McAvoy and Keira Knightley. British romance set in the years just before and at the beginning of World War II. This film seemed like a "poor man's Titanic." I didn't care for the characters at all. The film's middle section dealing with the evacuation at Dunkirk was the most interesting for me. The introduction of the story's author in the final fifteen minutes was an insult to the audience. I thought, "What? Do you think we're all stupid?" And then the author's rationale for what she did was incredibly self-serving. Also: the film score drowned out a lot of the action on the screen — it's way too heavy-handed. (Idle thought: has Keira Knightley decided to stop eating?)

JUNO. My rating: ***. Directed by Jason Reitman. Starring Ellen Page and a fun supporting cast. A charming, breezy film! Story of a sixteen year old's unplanned pregnancy and her plans to have a mid-30s couple adopt the child. The real star of this film is Diablo Cody's screenplay; the writing is quick, quirky, and humorous. Ellen Page is quite good as well (she received a best actress nomination). If you like unexpected pregnancy films, you should also check out The Waitress.

MICHAEL CLAYTON. **1/2. Directed by Tony Gilroy; starring George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, and Tilda Swinton. (Also appearing is director Sydney Pollack as the law firm's boss; I wish he'd act in more films — he's quite convincing.) Dark legal crime thriller about a corporate "fixer." Big business is the bad guy, although this film isn't quite as preachy as Clooney's recent Syriana. Tom Wilkinson is a hoot as the bi-polar lawyer gone over-the-deep-end!

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. My rating: ***1/2. Directed by the Coen Brothers; starring Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, and Tommy Lee Jones. I'm a big Coen Brothers fan and this film does not disappoint. Long-time Coen brothers' cinematographer Roger Deakins is at his best here; lots of great shots. Set in early 1980s Texas, this is the story of a drug deal gone bad, and the ensuing search for the missing money. I liked Josh Brolin's work here (he's also quite good in American Gangster). Most memorable, though, is the character of Anton Chigurh, the money-seeking hit man who is played by Javier Bardem. I hope Bardem wins best supporting actor. The only thing I wish the Coens would change is how they treated the last 60 seconds of the film. (I won't spoil it; but I feel the ending could have been wrapped up in a different way.)

THERE WILL BE BLOOD. My rating: ****. Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson; starring Daniel Day-Lewis, and Paul Dano. Cinematography by Robert Elswit (lots of great shots). Based on Upton Sinclair's novel "Oil," "There Will Be Blood" is the turn of the century story of a greedy wildcatter and his dealings with a young hustler-preacher. Daniel Day-Lewis is astoundingly powerful: this is a performance for the ages! I'm a big PT Anderson fan, and this is clearly his best and tightest film. (If you haven't seen them, check out some of his early films such as Hard Eight and Boogie Nights). Also, if you want to see Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano together in very different roles, check out The Ballad of Jack and Rose (2005) directed by DD-L's wife Rebecca Miller.

I'd like to see There Will Be Blood win Best Picture, but I wouldn't be disappointed if No Country for Old Men took the Oscar in this category.

I've never downloaded a TV program. Until three weeks ago, that is. iTunes ran a special for the season of Mad Men ($22 for 13 episodes) and I snatched it up. (I connected my Mac to my plasma screen for viewing.)

Mad Men is the creation of former Sopranos' writer-producer Matt Weiner. The show is about the advertising industry and is set in the New York City of 1960. The title refers to "Madison Avenue" and this was the dawn of advertising's "golden age."

In this world, everyone smokes. Everyone drinks at work (sometimes before noon). And the women are either secretaries or housewives. The show centers around star creative director Don Draper (3rd from left, played by Jon Hamm).

It was fun to see the creative teams come up with ideas for various products such as: Lucky Strike, Kodak's slide projector, Richard Nixon's Presidential campaign, Israel Tourism Board, Bethlehem Steel, and a New York department store. It was also a kick to hear them talk about the new art of "Brainstorming" and how to do it!

I thoroughly enjoyed this program, and was happy to see it renewed for a second season. (I was twelve in 1960 and it was interesting to re-enter that world again: people watched Twilight Zone and Leave It to Beaver.)

Mad Men just won a Golden Globe for best "Dramatic Television Series," and Jon Hamm won for "Best Dramatic Actor." (He is very good.) Congratulations!

I'm a long time fan of writer and playwright David Mamet. His films stand out for their stylized, pithy dialog and intricate plot twists. Glengarry Glen Ross (winner of the Pulitzer prize) is a classic. If you've never seen House of Games, Things Change, Heist, Wag the Dog, Oleanna, or The Spanish Prisoner, you should rent their DVDs.

Mamet was interviewed recently by Robert Hughes in the WSJ. Several of his answers dealt with his own creative process.

WSJ:How hard is plot for you?

Mamet: I once worked for a summer laying sod.
This is the only thing I've ever done that was harder than that. You've
got to get over your own cleverness. You have to become extraordinary
analytical, and throw out all the stuff you love to get there.
Sometimes it doesn't make sense. You stare at that sheet of paper for
years and know there's something hiding in there.

WSJ:When you begin writing, do you have an idea where it's going to go?

Mamet: You've got to get in there and start
mucking around. After a while the material is going to correct you. You
have to listen to it, and extract the play that is hiding in your
subconscious. If it can't trick you, it can't trick the audience. You
have to follow your unconscious thoughts so that eventually you're
encased in a structure that, as Aristotle says, is surprising and
inevitable.

WSJ:Are you ruthless with your own rewriting?

Mamet: Oh yes. I don't care. I do it for a
living. If something doesn't work, I'm going to throw it out. What
pleasure is there in saying I'm right and the audience is wrong?

I'm no Mamet. But I will say that my writing experience (books and other products) is similar to his in this regard. Almost every time I've been stuck, it's usually because I've been in love with a particular idea, theme, metaphor, or quote. Only when I've "thrown out the stuff I love" (as Mamet would put it) do things begin to flow in a constructive way.

What can you "beloved ideas" can you throw away? What might that open up?

For the past month, I've been listening to Peter Saccio's "Shakespeare: Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies" (36 lectures presented by the Teaching Company). Saccio, a professor of Shakespearean Studies at Dartmouth, does a wonderful job of bringing the Bard, his work, and his times to life. This has been one of my favorite Teaching Company programs, and I heartily recommend it.

Listening to these lectures motivated me to seek out and watch a number of film adaptations of Shakespeare's tragedies: Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, MacBeth, Julius Caesar, and Romeo and Juliet. I had read all of these (except Othello) when I was student in the 1960s and early 1970s, but hadn't gone near them since. Thus, I was able to approach them both with a "fresh eye" and also nearly forty years of "life experience" that I (obviously) didn't have as a student.

Let's start with the Hamlets (I watched three versions).

Hamlet (1948), starring Laurence Olivier. This won Oscars for Best Picture and Best Actor. I had a lukewarm reaction to it. There are two reasons. First, the entire Hamlet play is four hours long, but this version was abridged to just over two hours, so I felt like I was missing something. Second, it was essentially a film version of an austere stage play, and felt cold and remote. Plus, I felt Olivier's performance was unconvincing (he was 41 at the time). I'd give the film **1/2 (out of four).

Hamlet (1990), abridged and directed by Franco Zeffirelli, and starring Mel Gibson, Glenn Close, Helen Bonham Carter, and Alan Bates. Mel Gibson brings a freshness and energy to the role of Hamlet; I thought he was quite believable in the part (at that time he made this picture, Gibson was the world's top box office attraction and the "sexiest man on the planet"). I also liked Glenn Close as Gertrude. Her bedroom confrontation scene with Gibson after the murder of Polonius is absolutely riveting. I'd give it ***.

Hamlet (1996) complete and unabridged, screenplay and directed by Kenneth Branagh, and starring Kenneth Branagh, Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, Kate Winslet, Charlton Heston, Billy Crystal, Robin Williams, and many more. This version is stunning. It is four hours long (with an intermission) and is on a scale comparable to Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago. The color, light, costumes, and detail are outstanding (it's filmed in 70mm TechniColor — a huge plus).

Branagh has set the play in a mid-19th century Denmark (he used Blenheim Palace for the exteriors), and you really get the sense that the characters (especially Claudius and Polonius) are running a country. And for the first time, I got a sense of the larger context of Hamlet. Branagh had lived and breathed Hamlet (and Shakespeare) for years, and it shows in his imaginative screenplay. There are also many well-choreographed tracking shots.

This was the best DVD I've seen this year, and I recommend it to all. Indeed, I watched the entire film again (yes, all four hours) with the Director's Commentary on. Most edifying. I'd give it a well-earned ****.

MacBeth (1971) directed by Roman Polanski. This version still holds up well today. Polanski made this soon after his wife, Sharon Tate, had been murdered by the Charles Manson family. I'm sure the second witches scene in which MacBeth has something akin to an acid trip had some therapeutic value for him. I saw this version when it first came out when I was a student at Stanford in 1972. It seemed like half the people in Mem Aud recited MacBeth's final soliloquy along with him ("To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time . . ." ***

King Lear (1974) starring James Earl Jones, Raul Julia, and Paul Sorvino. This was a video tape-to-DVD production of a live performance in Central Park (New York) in 1974. The audio and video quality aren't great, but the enthusiastic audience give this production a certain warmth. **1/2

Julius Caesar (1953) starring Marlon Brando, James Mason, and John Gielgud. I felt that (a young) John Gielgud as Cassius stole the show. And Brando (as Marc Anthony) is interesting to watch as well. ***

Romeo and Juliet (1968) directed by Franco Zeffirelli. I first saw this in 1969, and I remember there wasn't a dry eye in the house at the end (it was a great "date movie"). Zeffirelli's version holds up well today. This won Oscars for Best Cinematography and Costumes and nominations for Best Picture and Director. ***1/2

Also: Last year during myAkira KurosawaMarathon, I saw his adaptations of MacBeth (Throne of Blood, 1957) and King Lear (Ran, 1985), and I'd give each of them ***1/2.

Question: What other Shakespeare film adaptations would you recommend (or avoid)?

Michelangelo Antonioni, the great Italian director, died this past July at the age of 94 (born in 1912). In his honor, I decided to spend the past few weeks watching six of his films: L'Avventura, The Night, The Eclipse, Blow-Up, Zabriskie Point, and The Passenger.

What a viewing treat this was! If you're looking for story and narrative, Antonioni's probably not your guy. But if you're looking for a director who treats his locations as though they were characters, and composes his scenes as though they were paintings, you'll enjoy the visual feast Antonioni provides. Lots of attention to detail. Lots of visual surprises.

L'Avventura (The Adventure), 1960. (Link to trailer.) Monica Vitti and Gabriele Ferzetti. A woman disappears on a boat trip off of Sicily, and the effect this has on the people in her party. Alienation and the lives of the post-War Italian rich. The shots, pacing, and structure of this film were so different that it initially confused its viewers; when L'Avventura was shown at Cannes, much of the audience either booed or walked out. However, several days later it was awarded the Cannes Jury Prize, and a new star director had been created.

La Notte (The Night), 1961. (Link to nightclub scene with exotic dancer.) Marcello Mastroianni, Jeanne Moreau, and Monica Vitti. Twenty-four hours in the lives of a successful writer and his wife in Milan. They visit a dying friend, childhood haunts, a nightclub, and an all-night party. Again, the composition of the various scenes is striking.

L'Eclisse (The Eclipse), 1962. (Link to dogs and poles scene). Alain Delon and Monica Vitti. This film is often called the third part of Antonioni's Trilogy (along with L'Avventura and La Notte). About love, money, fear and alienation in early 1960s Rome. I felt as though I were watching an extended version of a "Twilight Zone" episode. As in his other films, the locations are the stars. He really brings them to life. I especially liked the stock market scenes and also the one in which the car is pulled out of the lake. Cannes Jury Prize winner.

Blow-Up, 1966. David Hemmings, Vanessa Redgrave, and Sara Miles. Antonioni's first English-speaking film and probably his most commercially successful one. A photographer believes that he has witnessed a murder. The film deals with the question of "what is real and what is not." I loved the final scene of the mime troupe engaged in a tennis match (here's a link). Nice time capsule of mid-1960s "Swinging London." Antonioni was nominated for Best Director Oscar.

Zabriskie Point, 1970. I had a difficult time getting a hold of it (I finally got it through a Russian distributor). This film was the strangest of the bunch. I think Antonioni wanted to created his own version of "Easy Rider." If you want to get a sense of "what the scene" was like in 1969-70 California, check out this film: student demonstrations, real estate moguls, drug orgies, police violence, youth rebellion, and counter-culture ethics. I loved the scenes in Death Valley. The exploding house sequence at the end is a classic (here's a link). Wonderful soundtrack that includes Jerry Garcia and Pink Floyd. This film really took me back.

The Passenger, 1975. (Link to trailer.) Jack Nicholson and Maria Schneider. My favorite of the bunch. It's the story of a journalist covering rebel wars in Africa who takes on the identity of a man who has died in the hotel room next to his. Only after he begins living his new life does he discover that he is now an arms dealer. Great scenes in Barcelona and southern Spain. The six-minute long tracking shot of the murder at the end is legendary (here's a link). Nicholson is excellent. I especially enjoyed Nicholson's commentary and Antonioni stories on my second viewing.

Viewing Antonioni is time well spent. I came away from these films feeling inspired. I got to see an artist who approached his medium on his own terms, and was able to make innovative statements. He continually tried new things, and sometimes failed. But he was able to advance the state of his craft.

Swedish film director Ingmar Bergman died today at the age of 89 in Sweden. I (and many others) consider him to be one of the greatest directors of all time. He made quite an impression on me when I was coming of age in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Earlier this year, I watched many of his works during a three week "Bergman Marathon." Here is my post of that wonderful experience.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I just completed my "Ingmar Bergman Marathon"! Over the past three
weeks, my wife and I watched 11 classic films from the great Swedish
director Ingmar Bergman (born 1918).

It started off about three weeks ago when I rented "Wild Strawberries"
on a whim. I had first seen it in 1970. After thoroughly enjoying it,
we decided to re-immerse ourselves in Bergman. These are the films we
watched: (the ones with the * are ones I had seen before in the early
1970s)

As I watched them, I couldn't help but compare my feelings about
these films to the feelings I had when I first watched them over
thirty-five years ago. Back then, I was a student in my early twenties trying to open my mind up to the big issues of life. At that time, these films helped do just that. Today, I'm in my late fifties and have had my own life experience, and these films helped to put that in perspective.

When I first saw "The Seventh Seal," "Wild Strawberries," and "Winter Light,"
I was entranced, delighted and provoked by the big metaphysical issues
Bergman confronted and explored. Plus Bergman's writing is outstanding.
These three films still stand up well today, and rightly deserve to be
called "Classics."

When I saw "The Passion of Anna" and "Cries and Whispers"
in theatrical release in the early 1970s, I was amazed by their ideas,
boldness, and subject matter. When I saw them again, I was less
impressed. The late 1960s and early 1970s were a confusing time, and
Bergman's own confusion comes out clearly — especially in "The Passion
of Anna." Now that I've had my own taste of life (business, marriage,
fatherhood, death of loved ones, etc.), I scratched my head over some
of the decisions his characters made. These films, nonetheless, are
still provocative and worth seeing.

What's especially enjoyable about Bergman is he presents us with consistent glimpses into his evolving
vision of God, man's place in the world, love, human relationships, and
fear. I use the word "consistent" because Bergman uses the same film
technicians and actors repeatedly. In a way, it's comforting to see Max von Sydow, Bibi Andersson, and Gunnar Bjornstrand, and then Liv Ullman, and Erland Josephson
adopt different roles in his work. I use the word "evolving" because
Bergman moved from a religious/metaphysical orientation to an
existential one.

Bergman, along with Kubrick, Kurosawa, and Fellini,
is one of the six or seven greatest directors of the second half of the
twentieth century. Watching eleven of his films in a short period was
fun, personally revealing, and above all inspiring!

If you haven't seen a Bergman film in a while, check one out. Criterion has done a fine job of bringing the films to the DVD format and adding special features and commentaries. The so-called "Trilogy" from the early 1960s — "Through A Glass Darkly," "Winter Light," and "The Silence" — is not a bad place to begin.

My wife and I are going to Russia (Moscow and St. Petersburg) next month. To prepare ourselves, we've been reading histories and novels about the Soviet Union/Russia. We've also been watching a number of Russian films, and we've enjoyed this window into Russian life. These are some of what we've seen so far.

"Burnt By the Sun" (Utomlynnye solntsem) 1994. This film won the 1994 Oscar for best foreign film. Directed by and starring Nikita Mikhalkov. About Stalin's reign of terror and purge of Soviet military officers in the 1930s. Wonderful cinematography. The film centers around the family life of revolutionary hero Colonel Kotov at his summer dacha. Highly recommended.

"Little Vera" (Malenkaya Vera) 1988. This metaphorical film, made in the waning years of the Soviet Union, is about the rebellious daughter in a dysfunctional family set against the backdrop of a society coming apart. If even only 10% of the grimness of Soviet Life is captured here, it's easy to see why Gorbachev was trying to reform his country, and why the Soviet Union came to an unceremonious end several years later.

"Andrei Rublev" (1966). By the great Soviet director Andrei Tarkovsky. This is a very powerful epic about the life and often brutal times of the 15th century Russian artist Andrei Rublev. Tarkovsky's vision of spirituality and art. Highly recommended. Cannes Grand Prize Winner.

"Solaris" 1972. The classic science fiction film from Andrei Tarkovsky (and another Cannes Grand Prize Winner). This film probes man's thoughts and conscience, as it follows a
psychologist who is sent to a space station situated over the
mysterious Solaris Ocean. The scientists on that space station are able to materialize people from their memories and dreams. What an amazing film!

"Oligarch" (aka "Tycoon") 2002. Starring Vladmir Mashkov. A thriller about the rise of the "Oligarchs" in the aftermath of the Soviet breakup. It's got it all: money, wealth, assassination, corruption, history, politics, a suave leading man, and a surprise ending.

"Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears" (Moskva slezam ne verit) 1980. Won 1980 Oscar for best foreign film. Delightful story of three young women who move to Moscow in search of their destinies. Part comedy, part love story, part battle of the sexes, and part tale of grit and persistence. I liked this film a lot.

"Papa" (2004). Directed by and starring Vladimir Mashkov.
Story of a 1930s small town Jewish father who dreams of the success of
his violinist sonâonly to be spurned by him when he achieves success at
the Moscow Conservatory.

"The Rider Named Death" (Vsadnik po imeni Smert) 2004. Well concocted production about a terrorist faction in pre-Soviet Russia (in Czar Nicholas II's final decade).

"Russian Ark" (Russkiy kovcheg) 2002. Directed by Aleksandr Sokurov. Its tagline is: "2,000 cast members, 33 rooms, 300 years, ALL IN ONE TAKE!" This film treats St. Petersburg Hermitage Museum as the Ark of Russian Culture. Remember the big deal about the six minute opening tracking shot in Robert Altman's "The Player"? Well, this 90 minute film is ONE BIG CONTINUOUS tracking shot. This film won many awards and is well worth seeing.

"Idiot" 2003. This is a well-produced drama in 10 episodes of Dostoevsky's masterpiece about the half-sane Prince Myshkin (Yevgeni Mironiv) and his return to St. Petersburg society and its world of vice, money, intrigue, scandal, and murder. We've got the Sopranos; the Russians have Dostoevsky.

QUESTION: What Russian films would you recommend for me (and others) to see?

A year ago this week, I was in Kyoto, Japan enjoying blooming cherry trees and Zen Rock Gardens. Prior to the trip I watched a number of films by the great Japanese director, Akira Kurosawa (1910-1998). I consider Kurosawa to be one of the greatest directors of the second half of the 20th century along withStanley Kubrick, Ingmar Bergman, andFederico Fellini.

These are my five favorite Kurosawa films and I recommend them all to you. (All are available through Netflix.) What comes through is the quality of Kurosawa's writing (top notch), and his concern with the different moral dimensions of human beings. These films give you much to think about. They also showcase the fine acting skills of Toshiro Mifune and Takashi Shimura.

Seven Samurai (1954). With Toshiro Mifune and Takashi Shimura. This film is absolutely stunning. I felt the virtue and nobility of the leading characters wash over me (it will happen to you, too). The film is about a veteran samurai who answers a village's
request for protection from bandits. He gathers six other samurai to help
him. The film culminates in
a huge battle when the bandits attack the village. This film was basis of the Hollywood film "Magnificent Seven" (1960) with Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen, but the original Kurosawa version is far superior. This film is nearly four hours long, and I watched it over two sittings.

Rashomon (1950). With Toshiro Mifune and Takashi Shimura. The classic example of "point of view" means just about everything. This film is set in 12th century Japan. A samurai and his wife are attacked by the
notorious bandit Tajomaru, and the samurai ends up dead. The bandit is
captured and is put on trial, but his story and the
wife's are so completely different that a psychic is brought in to
allow the murdered man to give his own testimony. And then a whole different story emerges. Finally, the woodcutter who found the body tells his version, and it's completely different from the others. Mifune is wonderful in this film!

Ikiru (1952) Starring Takashi Shimura. This was the first Kurosawa film I saw, and I can't recommend it highly enough. The title "Ikiru" means "to live." A longtime bureaucrat learns he is dying of cancer and wants to find some meaning
in his life. He finds himself unable to talk with his family, and
spends a night on the town with a writer, but that leaves him
unfulfilled. He next spends time with a young woman from his office,
but finally decides he can make a difference through his job. This film has many plot turns, and the music is wonderful. The final scene of the protagonist sitting in a swing at night in the falling snow is haunting, and will stick with you for a long time.

Throne of Blood (1957) With Toshiro Mifune and Takashi Shimura. Kurosawa transports Shakespeare's 'Macbeth' to medieval Japan. This film made me see and understand "Macbeth" in a whole new way. A very fine adaptation and production.

Ran (1985). This is one of Kurosawa's final films. It's also the only one I saw in color (all the others from the 1950s were in black in white). Kurosawa borrows the story from Shakespeare's "King Lear." Kurosawa's insights into human relations are displayed in full glory. A story of greed, a lust for power, and ultimate revenge. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like the "burning castle" scene. Very colorful, but the tone is dark and pessimistic. Kurosawa gives you a lot to think about regarding the human condition.